Persons in The Matter of Ozaeta

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

 

92 SCRA 1
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF
THE FIRM NAME "OZAETA, ROMULO, DE LEON, MABANTA & REYES."

RICARDO J. ROMULO, BENJAMIN M. DE LEON, ROMAN MABANTA, JR., JOSE


MA, REYES, JESUS S. J. SAYOC, EDUARDO DE LOS ANGELES, and JOSE F.
BUENAVENTURA
July 30, 1979

Melencio-Herrera, J 

Facts:

The surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta filed a petition praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the name of their firm, the names of their partner who passed away. One of the
petitioners’ arguments stated that no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased
partner’s name in a professional firm’s name in so far as Greater Manila Area is concerned. No
custom exists which recognizes that the name of a law firm necessarily identifies the individual
members of the firm. They also stated that the continued use of a deceased partner’s name in the
firm name of law partnerships
has been consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and is an accepted practice in the legal profession
of most countries in the world.

Issue:

Whether or not the law firm “Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes” is allowed to sustain
the name of their deceased partner, Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, in the name of their firm.

Held: 

No. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association
stated the following: “The continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner when
permissible by local custom is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception
is practiced through this
use.” No local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former partner’s
name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm names, under Philippine custom, identify the
more active or senior partners in a firm. Firm names in the Philippines change and evolve when
partners die, leave or a new one is added. It is questionable to add the new name of a partner and
sustain the name of the deceased one since they have never been, technically, partners in the first
place. When it comes to the arguments of
the petitioners stating that U.S. Courts grant the continued use of the deceased partner’s name,
this is so because in the U.S., it is a sanctioned custom as stated in the case of
  Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (33 N.Y.S 2d 733). This does not apply in the
Philippines. The petition filed herein is denied and petitioner is advised to drop the name
“OZAETA” from the firm name.

You might also like